Back
Sikkim State Consumer Commission upholds compensation for Royal Stag whiskey with foreign particles
The , has dismissed an appeal by and , upholding a lower consumer forum's award of compensation to a consumer who found a white, sticky, algae-like substance floating in a bottle of Royal Stag whiskey. The appeal was heard by a bench comprising Justice Bhaskar Raj Pradhan (President), Hem Kumar Chhetri (Member), and Karma Loday Lepcha (Member).
A Troubling Purchase
In , Bijay Rai purchased a 375 ml bottle of Seagram's Royal Stag whiskey from a foreign liquor shop in Lower Pelling, West Sikkim, for ₹226. Upon opening the bottle, Rai noticed a visible foreign substance — described as a white, sticky, algae-like matter — floating inside. He promptly filed a consumer complaint before the .
During the proceedings, the District Commission opened the sealed bottle in the presence of both parties. The cap and hologram were found intact, but the foreign particles were clearly visible. The bottle was sent to the , Kolkata, for analysis. EFRAC confirmed that the hologram seal and cap were intact and that the bottle had not been tampered with.
Based on this evidence, the District Commission awarded Rai ₹226 for the defective product, ₹35,000 as compensation for and harassment, and ₹20,000 towards litigation costs. Pernod Ricard challenged this order before the State Commission.
Company's Counterclaims Fail
The appellants argued that the bottle could be spurious or counterfeit and not manufactured by them. However, the State Commission found that the company failed to substantiate this claim. Notably, the purchase executive of Pernod Ricard admitted that the bottle they produced to demonstrate the hologram was manufactured in , whereas the disputed bottle was manufactured in — an inconsistency that undermined their defense.
Furthermore, an enquiry report relied upon by the appellants was prepared after the complaint was filed and without direction from the District Commission, leading the State Commission to disregard it. The Commission observed that it was for the appellants to prove the bottle was counterfeit, and they failed to do so.
Key Observations
"The confirmation by the EFRAC reassures that the Royal Stag whiskey bottle was not tampered with by the respondent."— Para 10
"It was for the appellant to prove it which they failed to do. In fact, the evidence produced by the appellant suggests that the Royal Stag whiskey bottle was in fact manufactured by them."— Para 12
The bench noted that the District Commission's finding of
was unassailable.
"The learned DCDRC’s conclusion that therefore there was
on the Part of the appellant as the bottle of Royal Stag whiskey was
both of which were required to be maintained under the law, cannot be questioned,"
the judgment stated.
Decision and Implications
The State Commission upheld the compensation award, finding it well-balanced and not exorbitant. The appeal was dismissed with .
The ruling reinforces that manufacturers bear the that a product is counterfeit when alleging consumer tampering. It also underscores that intact packaging and seals can support a consumer's claim of a genuine product being defective, thereby strengthening consumer protection in cases involving packaged goods.
